Skip to content
Grand Jury Hub
← Report overview
Response synthesis and audit

SacRT Board response and MAC chair observations

The Board disputes several findings and reports completed or proposed changes. The MAC chair separately supports procedural improvements while emphasizing existing communication.

Official response PDFOfficial report PDF

Response by Sacramento Regional Transit District Board of Directors; William Charles Johnson, MAC Chair (personal views)

4

Addressed

11

Partially addressed

0

Not addressed

0

Unclear

County's stated disposition

These categories reflect the County's response to each recommendation, separate from this audit's assessment.

3

Implemented

2

Will be implemented

0

Requires further analysis

0

Will not be implemented

4

Unclear

How to read this audit

Default download opens the unchanged 16-page Board-approved July 27 original, including its photo attachment. Four chair audits select the separate August 3 original. The chair expressly says his views were vetted by neither the Board nor MAC; no institutional authority is inferred.

Commitments

Actions stated in the response

These are commitments extracted from the County's response. They describe what the response says will happen; they do not verify that implementation occurred.

1

Extracted commitments

0

Definite or bounded timing

0

Conditional timing

1

No timeframe

R4-board · No timeframe stated

Incorporate individuals with disabilities in future SacRT mystery rider assignments.

No target date stated

Item-by-item review

Findings and recommendations

Assessments describe whether the response engages each cited item. Finding scores separately describe statutory-elements completeness under California Penal Code § 933.05(a) and public usefulness. They do not independently verify the response or constitute a legal conclusion.

Showing 15 of 15 items

finding · F1-board

The Grand Jury finds the District paid HBSS prematurely, which demonstrates a failure to properly manage the contract

Audit: Addressed

Response says

SacRT disagrees with a broad contract-management failure while acknowledging one premature payment.

Audit analysis

The disputed inference is explicit. The response describes a Notice of Default, payment withholding and internal corrective steps. These named procedures explain the disagreement without proving their effectiveness.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

10/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

6/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
2/2

The disputed inference is explicit. The response describes a Notice of Default, payment withholding and internal corrective steps. These named procedures explain the disagreement without proving their effectiveness.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 9Response page 6
Discuss finding and response

recommendation · R1-board

The Grand Jury recommends the District immediately and continuously ensure compliance with their financial controls and procurement oversight

County: ImplementedAudit: Addressed

Response says

SacRT reports implemented payment-authorization and contract-administration improvements.

Audit analysis

Roles, payment milestone checks and revised procedures engage the financial-control recommendation. This assesses the response’s engagement, not independently verified implementation.

Report page 9Response page 7

finding · F2-board

The Grand Jury finds the District fails to obtain valuable insight from riders with disabilities on a timely basis, despite the District’s assertion that “established public procurement practices allow staff to gather input from stakeholders,” resulting in wasteful expenditures and damaged relationships with members of the disability community

Audit: Addressed

Response says

SacRT disagrees, distinguishing internal software procurement and emergency barriers from customer-facing consultation.

Audit analysis

Named pilot testing and barrier adjustments provide specific context, but do not fully resolve whether rider insight arrived early enough or the claimed waste and relationship damage.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

9/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

5/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
1/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
2/2

Named pilot testing and barrier adjustments provide specific context, but do not fully resolve whether rider insight arrived early enough or the claimed waste and relationship damage.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 9Response page 8
Discuss finding and response

recommendation · R2-board

The Grand Jury recommends the District establish a formal procedure by December 31, 2026, to incorporate input from the MAC when developing proposals to procure equipment or services that may impact riders with disabilities, and solicit input from the MAC during the RFP preparation, including the process of awarding the contract

County: ImplementedAudit: Partially addressed

Response says

SacRT says early engagement is implemented, citing MAC input before a supplemental-provider solicitation.

Audit analysis

An example demonstrates asserted early input, but the requested formal procedure and participation in contract award are not fully specified.

Report page 9Response page 9

finding · F3-board

The Grand Jury finds SacRT GO riders lost access to the Ecolane tracking app for an extended period of time, without clear and effective communication from the District, including the use of all available communication channels, resulting in a frustrating experience for ridership, significant impairment of daily activities and increased expenditures by the District

Audit: Partially addressed

Response says

SacRT disputes loss of ADA transport access, acknowledges app frustration and describes uninterrupted telephone reservations.

Audit analysis

The original finding concerns lost tracking, unclear communication, daily impacts and expense—not complete loss of transport. The response explains app incompatibility and its May 19 launch but reframes the central proposition and leaves impacts and costs incomplete.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

8/10

3/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
1/2

5/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
1/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
2/2

The original finding concerns lost tracking, unclear communication, daily impacts and expense—not complete loss of transport. The response explains app incompatibility and its May 19 launch but reframes the central proposition and leaves impacts and costs incomplete.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 9Response page 10
Discuss finding and response

recommendation · R3-board

The Grand Jury recommends the District implement a consistent communication plan by December 31, 2026, that includes all available communication channels and proactive outreach to callers

County: ImplementedAudit: Partially addressed

Response says

SacRT reports implemented multi-channel communications and future periodic updates.

Audit analysis

The response lists channels but does not demonstrate a consistent plan with proactive caller outreach and informed dispatchers as requested.

Report page 10Response page 11

finding · F4-board

The Grand Jury finds “mystery riders” assessing the District’s paratransit service are not required to be riders with a disability, reducing the accuracy of reporting on the paratransit experience for riders with disabilities

Audit: Addressed

Response says

SacRT partially agrees and acknowledges that disabled mystery riders have not yet been assigned to its evaluations.

Audit analysis

The response clearly describes existing contractor hiring and the assignment gap. It identifies the relevant distinction and requested future inclusion.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

10/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

6/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
2/2

The response clearly describes existing contractor hiring and the assignment gap. It identifies the relevant distinction and requested future inclusion.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 10Response page 12
Discuss finding and response

recommendation · R4-board

The Grand Jury recommends the District use actual SacRT GO and UZURV riders as “mystery riders” at the beginning of the next Mystery Rider contract term

County: Will be implementedAudit: Partially addressed

Response says

SacRT will request disabled mystery riders and review its next procurement.

Audit analysis

Future implementation is stated but no contract-term timeframe is supplied; disabled contractor employees are not necessarily actual SacRT GO and UZURV riders.

Extracted commitments

Incorporate individuals with disabilities in future SacRT mystery rider assignments.

Responsible party
Sacramento Regional Transit District Board of Directors
Timing
No timeframe stated
Report page 10Response page 13

finding · F5-board

The Grand Jury finds the District Board receives filtered information from the MAC, leaving the Board with incomplete information about issues affecting the disabled ridership

Audit: Partially addressed

Response says

SacRT disagrees that information is intentionally filtered or withheld and describes several Board channels.

Audit analysis

Public minutes, summaries and supplemental procurement updates give specific context. They do not fully explain differences between the actual MAC minutes and staff summaries appended to the report; intent is not required by the finding.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

8/10

3/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
1/2

5/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
1/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
2/2

Public minutes, summaries and supplemental procurement updates give specific context. They do not fully explain differences between the actual MAC minutes and staff summaries appended to the report; intent is not required by the finding.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 10Response page 13
Discuss finding and response

recommendation · R5-board

The Grand Jury recommends, beginning the next Board meeting after September 30, 2026, the Board agenda packet include the actual minutes of the MAC meetings, rather than a summary of the meetings prepared by District staff

County: Will be implementedAudit: Partially addressed

Response says

SacRT says it will improve regular access and reports more detailed MAC minutes beginning with a July 24 Board packet.

Audit analysis

The response mixes future and completed claims. More detailed information is not an explicit commitment to including actual minutes, and the stated July 24 date is not silently replaced with the approval date.

Report page 10Response page 14

finding · F3-mac-chair

The Grand Jury finds SacRT GO riders lost access to the Ecolane tracking app for an extended period of time, without clear and effective communication from the District, including the use of all available communication channels, resulting in a frustrating experience for ridership, significant impairment of daily activities and increased expenditures by the District

Audit: Partially addressed

Response says

The chair acknowledges app frustration but says its broader impact was overstated and other reservation channels remained available.

Audit analysis

This unnumbered app-transition discussion implicitly disputes the degree of impact and provides a usage estimate. It does not directly take a formal position on F3 or fully address lost tracking and increased expenditure. The chair’s platform account also differs from SacRT’s account.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

6/10

2/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
1/2
Applicable disagreement elements
1/2

4/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
1/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
1/2

This unnumbered app-transition discussion implicitly disputes the degree of impact and provides a usage estimate. It does not directly take a formal position on F3 or fully address lost tracking and increased expenditure. The chair’s platform account also differs from SacRT’s account.

Scoring confidence: medium

Report page 9Response page 2
Discuss finding and response

recommendation · R2-mac-chair

The Grand Jury recommends the District establish a formal procedure by December 31, 2026, to incorporate input from the MAC when developing proposals to procure equipment or services that may impact riders with disabilities, and solicit input from the MAC during the RFP preparation, including the process of awarding the contract

County: UnclearAudit: Partially addressed

Response says

The chair supports a brief District statement confirming MAC involvement and explanations when its input is rejected.

Audit analysis

Personal support is not an authorized District implementation category or a dated adoption commitment.

Report page 9Response page 1

recommendation · R3-mac-chair

The Grand Jury recommends the District implement a consistent communication plan by December 31, 2026, that includes all available communication channels and proactive outreach to callers

County: UnclearAudit: Partially addressed

Response says

The chair describes existing channels and favors a formal website statement.

Audit analysis

The response supplies personal observations, not a District commitment to proactive caller outreach or a scheduled communications plan.

Report page 10Response page 2

recommendation · R4-mac-chair

The Grand Jury recommends the District use actual SacRT GO and UZURV riders as “mystery riders” at the beginning of the next Mystery Rider contract term

County: UnclearAudit: Partially addressed

Response says

The chair supports assigning disabled mystery riders and understands none have yet evaluated SacRT.

Audit analysis

Support does not establish future assignment timing or the use of actual SacRT GO and UZURV riders.

Report page 10Response page 2

recommendation · R5-mac-chair

The Grand Jury recommends, beginning the next Board meeting after September 30, 2026, the Board agenda packet include the actual minutes of the MAC meetings, rather than a summary of the meetings prepared by District staff

County: UnclearAudit: Partially addressed

Response says

The chair favors including actual MAC minutes in Board packets.

Audit analysis

The desired action is directly supported, but a personal view is not a Board adoption or implementation commitment.

Report page 10Response page 3